7 ms·

By the way, the sources are up on http://crna.cc/ http://crna.cc/ now.

by christina_b 14y ago

taligent 14y ago
Any thoughts about getting this up on Github ? Would definitely get you some contributors.
- mparlane 14y ago
  From IRC (don't shoot the messenger, please..): <_Christina_> no github, i dont like revision control
  - lucian1900 14y ago
    I hope she changes her mind. Revision control saved many people's asses throughout history.
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    There's opinionated, then there's reckless.
    - josephkern 14y ago
      Revision control does not need software per se. Keeping multiple directories and files works too (not as well though).
      - dexen 14y ago
        Which is what Git does: every commit actually is a directory/file tree and a small note a.k.a. `commit message'. You could re-create the effect by hand, by placing `.commit' file in root of the multiple directories you speak of. However, Git (and any other DVCS) does the bookkeeping and keeps you from missing that one small detail at 4AM. Also, it's much faster to git-commit than to copy 150MB of sources by hand; mostly because Git avoids work where sensible. Ditto for git-diff.
    - gcr 14y ago
      Linus himself said that emailing tarballs and patch files is better than many source control systems (he said this about SVN) I myself have seen (and had the mispleasure of fixing) many tangled git history trees. In all cases, you have to be responsible, which neither influences or is influenced by your choice of revision control.
  - hartror 14y ago
    Did you ask why? There must be a well thought out explanation for this surely?
    - christina_b 14y ago
      I'm the only maintainer of this project. I find revision control redundant, since it takes extra steps to set up and use while being of very little value. I'm reasonably good at maintaining my tree without needing any fancy revision control systems (git/svn/whatever). I will get hated for what I've just said.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        That makes sense if it's just you, but you must be losing a lot of potential contributors by not being on Github, let alone not using any version control. Are you just not that interested in contributions from the public? If so, I think it's possible you're greatly underestimating community interest in the project.
        flatline3 14y ago
        The choice of SCM is the least important factor when it comes to contributors to a genuinely complex problem like this one.
      - nooop 14y ago
        I hate you! More seriously git is super easy to begin to use, and even more so for small projects and / or projects with a small number of contributors. Setup? git init; git add . (if no unwanted binary in the tree) Something interesting has been done? git commit -am "rock more" New source file? git add file; git commit -m "new foobar module" What value does it bring? Great revert capability, bisecting bugs, and so over. I agree most of the time I don't need it, but well, when I do it is handy. It is like being insured.
      - tanoku 14y ago
        This is Hacker News; we try to stay civil, so I don't think many people are going to "hate" you for not using (understanding?) version control. Then again, I don't think many people will take you or your project seriously after this, either. Many of us went past folders and tarballs for version control back in 1992, and personally, there's no way I'm going to touch an OS Kernel that is distributed in a zip file. That is not how you do open source -- for what it's worth, you may want to keep your tarballs to yourself: that'd serve the same practical purpose.
  - SimHacker 14y ago
    I can understand and sympathize with "no github, I don't like github" or "I don't like git", or "I don't like social networking" or "I don't like horny virgin hacker boys cyber stalking my every edit" but what the hell?
  - VMG 14y ago
    Somebody else will put this on github then.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      That would be rude.
      - flatline3 14y ago
        To elaborate, it's rude to take someone else's project, and under the same name, publish it elsewhere. This has been a rule of open-source for a very long time. If you're going to fork someone else's project, either rename, or call your github fork a mirror (and treat it purely like one).
        daleharvey 14y ago
        This has most certainly not been the rule of open source, its almost the opposite of the 'rules' of open source. The author may not be interested in managing contributions or using source control, that is their prerogative, but as long as the license permits it if people want to work on the source code and collaborate with others, it is completely fine (and encouraged) for them to fork it
        flatline3 14y ago
        Forking a project has always been an option of last resort in open source. Doing so while stealing the name is downright nasty.
        0x006A 14y ago
        Putting a version of an open source project into version control is not a fork, you could argue the same way that distributions are forking all software because they put them in packages. To fork you have to write code.
  - hasenj 14y ago
    From Linus himself: (I don't remember what he exactly said, but it's something to this effect): I hate revision control, that's why I created git.
robot 14y ago
Would it be super hard (and, illegal) to port upper iOS layers as binaries?
- mparlane 14y ago
  It's a time intensive thing and not illegal if it's your own code/implementation. The google/oracle case shows that the api is not copyrightable but the implementation is.
- Xuzz 14y ago
  The legal route would to be to provide an installer that downloads e iOS frameworks from Apple, so you aren't redistributing anything. However, it would still be quite a bit of work: iOS has a not-insignificant layer of drivers in the not-yet-recreated IOKit kernel framework (although some are open source), and likely many other low-level layers that would need to be recreated. However, it's certainly possible, but as 'mparlane says, it would be a lot of (difficult) work.
- densh 14y ago
  IMO if it's not illegal at the moment, apple will add another clause to their next EULA to make it so if project gains any traction. (Similar to the way they prohibit use of OS X on non-apple hardware.)

By the way, the sources are up on http://crna.cc/ http://crna.cc/ now.

taligent 14y ago

Any thoughts about getting this up on Github ? Would definitely get you some contributors.

mparlane 14y ago
From IRC (don't shoot the messenger, please..): <_Christina_> no github, i dont like revision control
- lucian1900 14y ago
  I hope she changes her mind. Revision control saved many people's asses throughout history.
- hahainternet 14y ago
  There's opinionated, then there's reckless.
  - josephkern 14y ago
    Revision control does not need software per se. Keeping multiple directories and files works too (not as well though).
    - dexen 14y ago
      Which is what Git does: every commit actually is a directory/file tree and a small note a.k.a. `commit message'. You could re-create the effect by hand, by placing `.commit' file in root of the multiple directories you speak of. However, Git (and any other DVCS) does the bookkeeping and keeps you from missing that one small detail at 4AM. Also, it's much faster to git-commit than to copy 150MB of sources by hand; mostly because Git avoids work where sensible. Ditto for git-diff.
  - gcr 14y ago
    Linus himself said that emailing tarballs and patch files is better than many source control systems (he said this about SVN) I myself have seen (and had the mispleasure of fixing) many tangled git history trees. In all cases, you have to be responsible, which neither influences or is influenced by your choice of revision control.
- hartror 14y ago
  Did you ask why? There must be a well thought out explanation for this surely?
  - christina_b 14y ago
    I'm the only maintainer of this project. I find revision control redundant, since it takes extra steps to set up and use while being of very little value. I'm reasonably good at maintaining my tree without needing any fancy revision control systems (git/svn/whatever). I will get hated for what I've just said.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      That makes sense if it's just you, but you must be losing a lot of potential contributors by not being on Github, let alone not using any version control. Are you just not that interested in contributions from the public? If so, I think it's possible you're greatly underestimating community interest in the project.
      - flatline3 14y ago
        The choice of SCM is the least important factor when it comes to contributors to a genuinely complex problem like this one.
    - nooop 14y ago
      I hate you! More seriously git is super easy to begin to use, and even more so for small projects and / or projects with a small number of contributors. Setup? git init; git add . (if no unwanted binary in the tree) Something interesting has been done? git commit -am "rock more" New source file? git add file; git commit -m "new foobar module" What value does it bring? Great revert capability, bisecting bugs, and so over. I agree most of the time I don't need it, but well, when I do it is handy. It is like being insured.
    - tanoku 14y ago
      This is Hacker News; we try to stay civil, so I don't think many people are going to "hate" you for not using (understanding?) version control. Then again, I don't think many people will take you or your project seriously after this, either. Many of us went past folders and tarballs for version control back in 1992, and personally, there's no way I'm going to touch an OS Kernel that is distributed in a zip file. That is not how you do open source -- for what it's worth, you may want to keep your tarballs to yourself: that'd serve the same practical purpose.
- SimHacker 14y ago
  I can understand and sympathize with "no github, I don't like github" or "I don't like git", or "I don't like social networking" or "I don't like horny virgin hacker boys cyber stalking my every edit" but what the hell?
- VMG 14y ago
  Somebody else will put this on github then.
  - flatline3 14y ago
    That would be rude.
    - flatline3 14y ago
      To elaborate, it's rude to take someone else's project, and under the same name, publish it elsewhere. This has been a rule of open-source for a very long time. If you're going to fork someone else's project, either rename, or call your github fork a mirror (and treat it purely like one).
      - daleharvey 14y ago
        This has most certainly not been the rule of open source, its almost the opposite of the 'rules' of open source. The author may not be interested in managing contributions or using source control, that is their prerogative, but as long as the license permits it if people want to work on the source code and collaborate with others, it is completely fine (and encouraged) for them to fork it
        flatline3 14y ago
        Forking a project has always been an option of last resort in open source. Doing so while stealing the name is downright nasty.
        0x006A 14y ago
        Putting a version of an open source project into version control is not a fork, you could argue the same way that distributions are forking all software because they put them in packages. To fork you have to write code.
- hasenj 14y ago
  From Linus himself: (I don't remember what he exactly said, but it's something to this effect): I hate revision control, that's why I created git.

robot 14y ago

Would it be super hard (and, illegal) to port upper iOS layers as binaries?

mparlane 14y ago
It's a time intensive thing and not illegal if it's your own code/implementation. The google/oracle case shows that the api is not copyrightable but the implementation is.
Xuzz 14y ago
The legal route would to be to provide an installer that downloads e iOS frameworks from Apple, so you aren't redistributing anything. However, it would still be quite a bit of work: iOS has a not-insignificant layer of drivers in the not-yet-recreated IOKit kernel framework (although some are open source), and likely many other low-level layers that would need to be recreated. However, it's certainly possible, but as 'mparlane says, it would be a lot of (difficult) work.
densh 14y ago
IMO if it's not illegal at the moment, apple will add another clause to their next EULA to make it so if project gains any traction. (Similar to the way they prohibit use of OS X on non-apple hardware.)